27 years since Chernobyl and what have we learned?

April 26th marks the 27th anniversary of the devastating accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine.

The radiation released into the atmosphere by the exploding nuclear reactor found its way across Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and large parts of Europe.

The contamination still lingers in many places - the disaster has a legacy that continues even now.

So today, we remember those who died in the Chernobyl accident and those who must still live with the terrible after effects of the radioactive contamination that still blights their lives.

Chernobyl should have been the world’s last nuclear accident. Enough of us shouted “NO MORE CHERNOBYLS!” But those with the money and the power and that strange ability to put profits before the protection of people carried on regardless.

The comparisons between Chernobyl and Fukushima are stark. Thousands upon thousands of people displaced from their homes to face uncertain futures. Melted reactors too dangerous for humans to approach for decades. Homes, schools, soil, food and water contaminated. Uncertainty about the long-term effects of the radiation that has spewed into the environment. Fear and anxiety that will creep across generations.

So today we remember both Chernobyl and Fukushima. There should never have been another Chernobyl. There should never be another Fukushima. Let us shout “NO MORE CHERNOBYLS AND FUKUSHIMAS” until we are heard.

It’s time we all stopped paying the price for nuclear power’s mistakes.

You can help by signing our petition to make the big, rich companies that supply nuclear reactors part of the responsibly for nuclear disasters that now rests with nuclear operators.

Companies like GE, Hitachi and Toshiba that supplied the flawed reactors at Fukushima should pay some of the costs. Right now they don’t have to. Making them more responsible for the costs of a nuclear disaster would at least help reduce some of the mistakes that lead to accidents.

It’s time to make the entire nuclear industry face its moral and financial responsibilities. It’s time to think of people not profits.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

If, if, if, if...

- if it would be 100% safe
- if it would not create an unsolvable radioactive waste problem
- if it would n...

If, if, if, if...

- if it would be 100% safe
- if it would not create an unsolvable radioactive waste problem
- if it would not help spreading nuclear weapon technology
- if it would not cost so much
- if it would not undermine democracy

and that is a lot of "if's"

... it could maximally produce handy electricity
... but it could still not save the whole world, because it is not a god...

And for that reason, it is a mirage, not a great resource.

The great resource for this planet is the sun. The sun creates plant and animal life, it creates light, it creates electricity, and it is sustainable.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Sebi447
says:

The sun IS a nuclear source... and how exactly do you suggest we harness this energy? Blanket Belgium in solar panels?

- Nothing is 100% ...

The sun IS a nuclear source... and how exactly do you suggest we harness this energy? Blanket Belgium in solar panels?

- Nothing is 100% safe. (how many people die of skin cancer each year?)
- With sufficient funding we could solve waste storage in a safe and sustainable way.
- Nuclear energy and nuclear armament are ABSOLUTELY not synonymous. (the enrichment ratios are way way of for a start)
- If more countries used it, it wouldn't be so expensive. This is true for just about every industry.
- Corruption and human stupidity undermines democracy. Not nuclear power.

Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster. And no one can deny this, but it really can not be compared to Fukushima. They are no where near the same scale.

We live a world of energy consumers. And as much as we might like to use less, for now we keep using more. Nuclear power is by far our best option in terms of power production and sustainability.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
says:

@Sebi447 - the Greenpeace / EREC energy [r]evolution scenario does not blanket Belgium with solar panels. Have a look at http://www.energyblueprint.in...

@Sebi447 - the Greenpeace / EREC energy [r]evolution scenario does not blanket Belgium with solar panels. Have a look at http://www.energyblueprint.info.

Indeed, nothing is 100% safe, some failures trigger larger catastrophes than others. And indeed some human behaviour triggers spread consequences, like the depletion of the ozone layer, an issue where Greenpeace also actively campaigned and where we can say that campaigning was more or less successful. Or like burning coal and oil, an issue we're also fighting.

Reducing risk of radioactive waste is not a question of money alone (though I have to agree that currently too little money from the nuclear industry goes into R&D for this problem). The hold-backs currently in Finland, Sweden, France (the only three countries with concrete plans) are technical problems which stand in the way of the projects getting through regulatory scrutiny. Apart from that there are more qualitative problems like should you inform future generations of dumping locations or not. Maybe watch the film "Into Eternity", in which the people working on the issue in Finland and Sweden explain that dilemma.

The spread of nuclear power technology has gone hand in hand with nuclear proliferation. Think India, Pakistan, Iran, Brazil, Sweden as a few examples where nuclear weapons programmes (present and past) were fed by knowledge from "atoms for peace".

Nuclear power bucks the trend of a positive learning curve (prices going down with more experience and infrastructure) already since its start. One of the main drivers is the need of high safety standards - which time and again prove to be just not sufficient.

The immense financial and power interests involved in nuclear projects and the nuclear industry are actively triggering greed and on that shoulder corruption. I meet honest and brilliant people in the nuclear sector that I keep in high esteem in spite of differences of opinion. I also meet there - and I have the impression a more than average - amount of people driven by corruption and stupidity.

Nuclear power has got nothing to do with sustainability (the waste problem and the limited resources of uranium already throw it out of the definition), and it is not the only option we have. We did and constantly re-do the calculations, and an energy [r]evolution is not only possible, it is cheaper, faster and cleaner than going the nuclear pathway. Did you do it? Most governments didn't.